G.R. No. 164785 – ELISEO F. SORIANO versus MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA, in her capacity as Chairperson of the
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, MOVIE AND TELEVISION
REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL
M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL
M. SANDOVAL and ROLDAN A. GAVINO
G.R. No. 165636 – ELISEO F. SORIANO versus MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, ZOSIMO G.
ALEGRE, JACKIE AQUINO-GAVINO, NOEL R. DEL PRADO, EMMANUEL BORLAZA, JOSE E.
ROMERO IV and FLORIMONDO C. ROUS, in their capacity as members of the Hearing
and Adjudication Committee of the MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA
CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA,
JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL and ROLDAN A. GAVINO, in their capacity as
complainants before the MTRCB.
Promulgated: April 29, 2009
x - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
SEPARATE OPINION
CORONA, J.:
Free speech is a preferred right which
has to be zealously guarded. Nonetheless, it is not absolute but limited by
equally fundamental freedoms enjoyed by other members of society. It is also
circumscribed by the basic principle of all human relations: every person must
in the exercise of his rights and performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.[1]
For these reasons, free speech may be subjected to reasonable regulation by the
State in certain circumstances when required by a higher public interest.
Factual
Backdrop
Petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano was one of
the hosts of Ang Dating Daan, a
television program aired on UNTV 37. The program was given a “G” rating by the
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB).
On August 10,
2004, at around 10:00 in the evening, petitioner uttered the following
statements in his program:
Lehitimong anak ng
demonyo[!] [S]inungaling[!]
Gago
ka talaga[,] Michael[!] [M]asahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba[?] [‘]Yung
putang babae ang gumagana lang doon [‘]yung ibaba, dito kay Michael ang
gumagana ang itaas, o di ba? O, masahol pa sa putang babae [‘]yan. Sabi ng lola
ko masahol pa sa putang babae [‘]yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga
demonyong ito.[2]
Acting
on complaints arising from the said statements, the MTRCB preventively
suspended the airing of the program for 20 days.[3]
Subsequently, the MTRCB found petitioner liable for his utterances and
suspended him from his program for three months.[4]
Petitioner
now assails his suspension as a violation of his right to free speech.
Free Speech And The
Uniqueness Of Broadcast Media
In free speech cases, the medium is relevant and material. Each
medium of expression presents its
own peculiar free speech problems.[5]
And in jurisprudence,[6]
broadcast media receive much less free speech protection from government
regulation than do newspapers, magazines and other print media.[7]
The electromagnetic spectrum used by broadcast media is a scarce resource. As
it is not available to all, unlike other modes or media of expression,
broadcast media is subject to government regulation.[8]
The broadcast spectrum is a publicly-owned forum for communication
that has been awarded to private broadcasters subject to a regulatory scheme
that provides limited access to speakers and seeks to promote certain public
interest goals.[9]
For this reason, broadcast media is a public trust and the broadcaster’s role
is that of “a public trustee charged with the duty of fairly and impartially
informing the public audience.”[10]
Thus, “of all forms of communication, it
is broadcasting that has received the most limited [free speech] protection.”[11]
Indeed, an unabridgeable right to broadcast is not comparable to the right of
the individual to speak, write or publish.[12]
Moreover, it is the right of the viewers
and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.[13]
Therefore, the use of the public airwaves for broadcasting
purposes (that is, broadcasting television programs over the public
electromagnetic spectrum) is a privilege, not a right.[14]
With this privilege comes certain obligations and responsibilities, namely
complying with the rules and regulations of the MTRCB or facing the risk of
administrative sanctions and even the revocation of one’s license to broadcast.
Equally Fundamental Rights As Limit
Of Speech In Broadcast Media
U.S. President Herbert Hoover (who was then Secretary of Commerce)
stated that ‘[t]he ether is a public medium and its use must be for a public
benefit.”[15]
The dominant element for consideration in broadcast media is therefore the
great body of viewing public, millions in number, countrywide in distribution.[16]
To reiterate, what is paramount is the
right of viewers, not the right of broadcasters.
What specific rights of viewers are relevant vis-ŕ-vis the right
of broadcasters to speak? Considering the uniquely pervasive presence of
broadcast media in the lives of Filipinos, these rights are as follows:
(a) the right of every
person to dignity;[17]
(b) the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character;[18]
(c) the right of the youth to the promotion and protection by the
State of their moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being[19]
and
(d) the right to privacy.
Right to dignity
The ideal of the Filipino people is
to build a just and humane society and a regime of truth, justice, freedom,
love, equality and peace.[20]
In this connection, among the fundamental policies of the State is that it
values the dignity of every human person.[21]
The civil code provisions on human relations also include the duty of every
person to respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons.[22]
A society which holds
that egalitarianism, non-violence, consensualism, mutuality and good faith are
basic to any human interaction is justified in controlling and prohibiting any
medium of depiction, description or advocacy which violates these principles.[23]
Speech which degrades the name, reputation or character of persons is offensive
and contributes to a process of moral desensitization. Free speech is not an
excuse for subjecting anyone to the degrading and humiliating message inherent
in indecent, profane, humiliating, insulting, scandalous, abusive or offensive
statements and other forms of dehumanizing speech.
Right of parents to develop the moral
character of their children; right of the youth to the promotion and protection
by the State of their moral well-being
Many Filipino homes have television sets. Children have access to
television and, in many cases, are unsupervised by parents. With their
impressionable minds, they are very susceptible to the corrupting, degrading or
morally desensitizing effect of indecent, profane, humiliating or abusive
speech.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation[24] elaborates:
[B]roadcasting is
uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read. Although Cohen’s
written message, [“Fuck the Draft”], might have been incomprehensible to a
first grader, Pacifica’s broadcast could have enlarged a child’s vocabulary in
an instant. Other forms of offensive expression may be withheld from the young
without restricting the expression at its source. Bookstores and motion picture
theaters, for example, may be prohibited from making indecent material
available to children. We held in Ginsberg
v. New York that the government’s interest in the “well-being of its youth”
and in supporting “parents’ claim to authority in their own household”
justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression. The ease with which
children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns
recognized in Ginsberg, amply justify
special treatment of indecent broadcasting.[25]
Parental interest in protecting children from exposure to
indecent, scandalous, insulting or offensive speech must be supported by the
government through appropriate regulatory schemes. Not only is this an exercise
of the State’s duty as parens patriae,
it is also a constitutionally enshrined State policy.[26]
In this connection, the MTRCB is mandated by law to classify television
programs. In particular, a “G” rating indicates that, in its judgment, a
particular program is suitable for all ages and without “anything unsuitable
for children and minors and may be viewed without adult guidance or
supervision.”[27]
A “PG” rating means that, in the judgment of the MTRCB, parental guidance is
suggested as it “may contain some adult material [which] may be permissible for
children to watch under the guidance and supervision of a parent or an adult.”[28]
Loud and public indecent or offensive speech can be reasonably regulated
or even prohibited if within the hearing of children. The potency of this rule
is magnified where the same speech is spoken on national prime-time television and
broadcast to millions of homes with children present and listening.[29]
Moreover, children constitute a uniquely
captive audience.[30] The
Constitution guarantees a society of free choice.[31]
Such a society presupposes the capacity of its members to choose.[32]
However, like someone in a captive audience, a
child is not possessed of that full capacity for individual choice.[33]
Because of their vulnerability to external influence, not only are children
more ‘captive’ than adults in the sense of not being as able to choose to
receive or reject certain speech but they may also be harmed more by unwanted
speech that is in fact received.[34]
Taken
in the context of the constitutional stature that parental authority receives
and given that the home is the domain for such authority, the government is
justified in helping parents limit children’s access to undesirable materials
or experiences.[35]
As such, the government may properly regulate and prohibit the television
broadcast of indecent or offensive speech.
Right to privacy
Protecting
the privacy of the home is a compelling government interest. Carey v. Brown[36]
emphatically declared that “[t]he State’s interest in protecting the
well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest
order in a free and civilized society.”[37]
Broadcast
indecency is sinister. It has the
capacity to intrude into the privacy of the home when least expected.
Unconsenting adults may tune in a station without warning that offensive
language is being or will be broadcast.[38]
Pacifica Foundation has this to say on the matter:
Patently offensive, indecent material
presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also
in the privacy of the home, where the individual’s right to be left alone
plainly outweighs the [free speech]
rights of an intruder.[39]
The right to privacy is intimately tied to the right to dignity which, in turn, hinges on individual choice.[40] Thus, in the context of broadcast indecency, the dominant constitutional principle at work is not free expression as indecency in and of itself has little or no value and is not protected.[41] Instead, the key constitutional principle involves privacy, dignity and choice. No one has the right to force an individual to accept what they are entitled to exclude, including what they must listen to or view,[42] especially in the privacy of the home. If a person cannot assert his authority at home, his self-worth is diminished and he loses a part of his sense of dignity.[43] His inability to make personal decisions is simply the consequence of having no right of choice in what is supposed to be his private sanctuary.
Basic Principle Of Human Relations
Vis-ŕ-vis The Right To Broadcast
The exercise of the
right to broadcast touches upon and inevitably clashes with various rights and
interests of the viewing public. Public interest, the ideal end of broadcast
media, is entirely different from what usually interests the public which is
the common fare of everyday programming.[44]
The objective of laws is to balance and harmonize as much as
possible those competing and conflicting rights and interests. For amidst the
continuous clash of interests, the ruling social philosophy should be that, in
the ultimate ideal social order, the welfare of every person depends upon the
welfare of all.[45]
Law cannot be given
an anti-social effect.[46]
A person should be protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of
his rights, that is, when he acts with prudence and good faith, not when he
acts with negligence or abuse.[47]
The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears and it disappears when
it is abused, especially to the prejudice of others.[48]
The mask of a right without the spirit of justice which gives it life is
repugnant to the modern concept of law.[49]
As applied to the right to broadcast, the broadcaster must so use
his right in accordance with his duties as a public trustee and with due regard
to fundamental freedoms of the viewers. The right is abused when, contrary to
the MTRCB rules and regulations, foul or filthy words are mouthed in the
airwaves.
Someone who utters indecent, scandalous, insulting or offensive
words in television is a proverbial pig in the parlor. Public interest requires
that he be reasonably restrained or even removed from that venue. Nonetheless,
the
no-pig-in-the-parlor rule does not mean that the government will be allowed either
to keep the pig from enjoying life in its pen or to apply the rule to non-pigs
attempting to enter the parlor.[50]
Free speech in broadcast media is premised on a marketplace of
ideas that will cultivate a more deliberative democracy, not on a
slaughterhouse of names and character of persons or on a butchery of all
standards of decency and propriety.
The confluence and totality of the fundamental rights of viewers[51]
and the proscription on abuse of rights significantly outweigh any claim to unbridled
and unrestrained right to broadcast speech. These also justify the State in
undertaking measures to regulate speech made in broadcast media including the
imposition of appropriate and reasonable administrative sanctions.
State Regulation Of Broadcast
Media Through The MTRCB
The MTRCB is the agency mandated by law to regulate television
programming. In particular, it has been given the following powers and
functions under its charter, PD[52]
1986:
Section 3. Powers
and Functions. – The BOARD shall have the following functions, powers and
duties:
(a) To promulgate such rules and regulations as
are necessary or proper for the implementation of this Act, and the
accomplishment of its purposes and objectives, including guidelines and standards
for production, advertising and titles. Such rules and regulations shall
take effect after fifteen (15) days following their publication in newspapers
of general circulation in the Philippines;
x x x x x x x x x
(c) To
approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions from and/or prohibit the x
x x production, copying, distribution, sale, lease, exhibition and/or
television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs and publicity
materials subject of the preceding paragraph, which, in the judgment of the
board applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are
objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs,
injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines or its people, or
with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of wrong
or crime, such as but not limited to:
x x x x x x x x x
(vi) Those
which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person,
whether living or dead;
x x x x x x x x x
(d) To supervise, regulate, and grant, deny or
cancel, permits for the importation, exportation, production, copying,
distribution, sale, lease, exhibition,
and/or television broadcast of all
motion pictures, television programs
and publicity materials, to the end that
no such pictures, programs and materials as are determined by the BOARD to be
objectionable in accordance with paragraph (c) hereof shall be imported,
exported, produced, copied, reproduced, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited and/or broadcast by television;
e) To classify motion pictures, television
programs and similar shows into categories such as "G" or
"For General Patronage" (all ages admitted), "P" or
"Parental Guidance Suggested", "R" or
"Restricted" (for adults only), "X" or "Not for Public
Viewing", or such other categories as the BOARD may determine for the public interest;
x x x
x x x x x x
(k) To
exercise such powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the
attainment of the purposes and objectives of this Act, and to perform such
other related duties and responsibilities as may be directed by the President
of the Philippines. (emphasis supplied)
The grant of powers to the MTRCB under Section 3 of PD 1986 does
not categorically express the power to suspend a television program or a host
thereof that violates the standards of supervision, regulation and classification of television programs
provided under the law. Nonetheless, such silence on the part of the law does
not negate the existence of such a power.
First, a general grant of power is a grant of every
particular and specific power necessary for the exercise of such general power.[53]
Other than powers expressly conferred by law on them, administrative agencies
may lawfully exercise powers that can be reasonably inferred in the wordings of
the enabling law.[54]
To begin with, Section 3(d) of PD 1986 explicitly
gives the MTRCB the power to supervise and regulate the television broadcast of
all television programs. Under Section 3(e) the MTRCB is also specifically
empowered to classify television programs. In the effective implementation of
these powers, the MTRCB is authorized under Section 3(a) “[t]o promulgate such
rules and regulations as are necessary or proper for the implementation of [PD
1986].” Finally, under Section 3(k), the MTRCB is warranted “[t]o exercise such
powers and functions as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of the
purposes and objectives of [PD 1986].”
Clearly, the law intends to give the MTRCB all the
muscle to carry out and enforce the law effectively. In consonance with this
legislative intent, we uphold the implied and necessary power of the MTRCB to
order the suspension of a program or a host thereof in case of violation of PD
1986 and rules and regulations that implement it.
Second, the grant of a greater power necessarily includes
the lesser power. In eo quod plus sit, semper inest et
minus.
The MTRCB has the power to cancel permits for the exhibition or
television broadcast of programs determined by the said body to be
objectionable for being “immoral, indecent, contrary to law or good customs x x
x.”[55]
This power is a power to impose sanctions.
A “sanction” in relation to administrative procedure is defined as
follows:
the whole or part of a
prohibition, limitation or other condition affecting the liberty of any person;
the withholding of relief; the imposition of penalty or fine; the destruction,
taking, seizure or withholding of property; the assessment of damages,
reimbursement, restitution, compensation, cost, charges or fees; the revocation or suspension of license;
or the taking of other compulsory or restrictive action.[56] (emphasis supplied)
The MTRCB’s power to cancel permits is a grant of authority to
permanently and absolutely prohibit the showing of a television program that
violates MTRCB rules and regulations. It necessarily includes the lesser power
to temporarily and partially prohibit a television program that violates MTRCB
rules and regulations by suspending either the showing of the offending program
or the appearance of the program’s offending host.
Third, broadcasters are public trustees. Hence, in a
sense, they are accountable to the public like public officers. Public accountability
imposes a three-fold liability, criminal, civil and administrative. As such,
the imposition of suspension as an administrative penalty is justified by the
nature of the broadcaster’s role vis-ŕ-vis the public.
Finally, the infraction of MTRCB rules and regulations
through the showing of indecent, scandalous, insulting or offensive material
constitutes a violation of various fundamental rights of the viewing public,
including the right of every person to dignity;
the right of parents to develop the moral character of their children; the
right of the youth to the promotion and protection by the State of their moral
well-being and the right to privacy.
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be
without a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there is a right, there
must be an effective remedy. While
civil damages may be awarded to the particular person who is the object of
indecent, scandalous, insulting or offensive material and imprisonment or fine
may be imposed to ensure the State’s interest in enforcing penal laws, these
remedies fail to address the violation of the fundamental rights of the viewing
public. Yet their interest is supposed to be of paramount importance.
Clearly, therefore, in case of violation of PD 1986
and its implementing rules and regulations, it is within the authority of the
MTRCB to impose the administrative penalty of suspension to the erring
broadcaster. A contrary stance will emasculate the MTRCB and render illusory
its supervisory and regulatory powers, make meaningless the public trustee
character of broadcasting and afford no remedy to the infringed fundamental
rights of viewers.
No Grave Abuse Of Discretion
On The Part of MTRCB
I have so far focused my discussion on the abstract, the
theoretical foundations and limitations of free speech in broadcast media. I
will now discuss the application of these concepts on petitioner’s case.
The petitions should have been dismissed at the outset for being
premature. Petitioner did not file a motion for reconsideration of the order
preventively suspending Ang Dating Daan
for 20 days as well as of the decision suspending petitioner for three months. As
a rule, a motion for reconsideration is indispensable before resort to the
special civil action for certiorari to afford the court or tribunal the
opportunity to correct its error, if any.[57]
Moreover, the petition in G.R. No. 165636
(assailing the MTRCB decision suspending petitioner for three months) could
have been denied from the start as it was an improper remedy. Not only did
petitioner fail to file a motion for reconsideration, he also neglected to file
an appeal. Recourse to petitions for certiorari and prohibition is proper only
where there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
available.[58]
In this case, petitioner had the remedy of appeal. His failure to file the
requisite appeal proscribed this petition and rendered the decision of the
MTRCB final and executory.[59]
In any event, the MTRCB did not commit a grave abuse of discretion
when it rendered its decision. On the contrary, the decision was proper as it
was supported by both the facts and the law.
Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[60]
In this case, petitioner failed to show any capriciousness, whimsicality or
arbitrariness which could have tainted the MTRCB decision.
Profanity
and indecent talk and pictures, which do not form an essential part of any
exposition of ideas, have a very slight social value as a step toward truth.[61]
Epithets that convey no ideas capable of being
true or false are worthless in the marketplace of ideas.[62]
Even the “slight social value” of indecency is “outweighed by the social
interests in order, morality, the training of the young and the peace of mind
of those who hear and see.”[63] Moreover, indecency and profanity thwart the
marketplace process because it allows “little opportunity for the usual process
of counter-argument.”[64]
The utterances which led to the suspension of petitioner from
appearing in the show Ang Dating Daan
were indisputably indecent and offensive considering the circumstances
surrounding it. In particular, petitioner called private respondent Michael M.
Sandoval “demonyo,” the
personification of evil, twice. He also called Sandoval “gago” (or idiot) once in the portion of the show subject of the
complaint against him. Immediately before that, however, the transcript of the
August 10, 2004 program of Ang Dating Daan
reveals that he had already hurled the same epithet at least five times against
Sandoval. Worse, he uttered the patently offensive phrase “putang babae” in a context that referred to the sexual act four
times. The repetitive manner by which he expressed the indecent and offensive
utterances constituted a blatant violation of the show’s classification as “G”
rated.
Another thing. Petitioner’s use of the pejorative phrase “putang babae” was sexist. The context of
his statement shows that he meant to convey that there is a substantial
difference between a woman and a man engaged in prostitution, that a female
prostitute is worse than a male prostitute. As such, not only did petitioner
made degrading and dehumanizing remarks, he also betrayed a very low regard for
women.
Even the most strained interpretation of free speech in the
context of broadcast media cannot but lead to the conclusion that petitioner’s
statements were indecent and offensive under the general standard of
contemporary Filipino cultural
values.
Contemporary values of the Filipino community will not suffer the utterances of
petitioner in the presence of children. Using contemporary values of the
Filipino community as a standard, it cannot be successfully denied that the statements made by petitioner transcended the bounds of
decency and even of righteous indignation.
Nonetheless, where
fundamental freedoms are involved, resort to the least restrictive approach is
called for. Steps should be taken and sanctions should be imposed with an
abundance of caution and with the least possible collateral damage. No measure
that is more than what is necessary to uphold public interest may be taken. In
this context, the least restrictive approach was that taken by the MTRCB, to suspend
the offending host rather than the show (in which case the other innocent hosts
would have been unduly penalized as well). The lesser power of suspending the
offending host should be preferred over the greater power of suspending the
show and all its hosts regardless of who uttered the indecent and offensive
remarks.
Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, therefore, and
considering the adverse effect of petitioner’s utterances on the viewers’
fundamental rights as well as petitioner’s clear violation of his duty as a
public trustee, the MTRCB properly suspended him from appearing in Ang Dating Daan for three months.
Furthermore, it cannot be properly asserted that petitioner’s
suspension was an undue curtailment of his right to free speech either as a
prior restraint or as a subsequent punishment. Aside from the reasons given
above (re the paramountcy of viewers
rights, the public trusteeship character of a broadcaster’s role and the power
of the State to regulate broadcast media), a requirement that
indecent language be avoided has its primary effect on the form, rather than
the content, of serious communication.[65]
There are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be expressed by the use of less
offensive language.[66]
A Final Word
There is a need to preserve the
delicate balance between the inherent police power of the State to promote
public morals and enhance human dignity and the fundamental freedom of the
individual to speak out and express himself. In this case and in the context of
the uniqueness of television as a medium, that balance may not be tilted in
favor of a right to use the broadcast media to rant and rave without due regard
to reasonable rules and regulations governing that particular medium.
Otherwise, the Court will promote (wittingly or unwittingly) the transformation
of the “boob tube” to a “boor tube” dominated by rude and unmannerly shows and
personalities that totally demean the precious guarantee of free speech and
significantly erode other equally fundamental freedoms.
To hold that the State, through the
MTRCB, is powerless to act in the face of a blatant disregard of its authority
is not a paean to free speech. It is a eulogy for the State’s legitimate
exercise of police power as parens
patriae to promote public morals by regulating the broadcast media. It is
an indictment of long and deeply held community standards of decency and
civility, an endorsement of indecorousness and indecency and of everything that
is contrary to basic principles of human relations.
Accordingly,
I vote to DISMISS these petitions.
Associate
Justice
[1] Article 19, Civil Code.
[2] Rollo, G.R. No. 164785, p. 258; id. G.R. No. 165636, p. 375.
[3] Order dated August 16, 2004.
[4] Decision dated September 27, 2004. Rollo, G.R. No. 165636, p. 378.
[5] Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wuilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952).
[6] See Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., G.R. No. L-59329, 19 July 1985, 137 SCRA 628; See also Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008, 545 SCRA 441.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. See also National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 (1943).
[9] Logan, Charles Jr., Getting Beyond Scarcity: A New Paradigm for Assessing the Constitutionality of Broadcast Regulation, 85 Cal. L. Rev. 1687 (1997).
[10] Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973).
[11] Federal Communications Commission [FCC] v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). This rule has also been recognized here in our jurisdiction. (See Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., supra and Chavez v. Gonzales, supra.)
[12] Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
[13] Id.
[14] Quale, Courtney Livingston, Hear an [Expletive], There an [Expletive], But[t]… The Federal Communications Commission Will Not Let You Say an [Expletive], 45 Williamette L. Rev. 207 (Winter 2008).
[15] Cited in Varona, Anthony, Out of Thin: Using First Amendment Public Forum Analysis to Redeem American Broadcasting Regulation, 39 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 149 (Winter 2006).
[16] Id.
[17] Section 11, Article II, Constitution:
SEC. 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
[18] Section 12, Article II, Constitution:
SEC. 12. x xx The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the government.
[19] Section 13, Article II, Constitution:
SEC. 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. x x x
[20] Preamble, Constitution.
[21] Section 11, Article II, Constitution.
[22] Article 26, Civil Code.
[23] Regina v. Butler, [1992] 2 W.W.R. 577, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452.
[24] Supra note 11.
[25] Id. (Citations omitted)
[26] Section 12, Article II, Constitution.
[27] Section 2(A), 2004 MTRCB Implementing Rules and Regulations.
[28] Section 2(B), id.
[29] Carter, Edward et al., Broadcast Profanity and the “Right to be Let Alone”: Can the FCC Regulate Non-Indecent Fleeting Expletives Under a Privacy Model, 31 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 1 (Fall 2008).
[30] Id.
[31] Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) (Stewart, J., concurring).
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Araiza, William D., Captive Audiences, Children and the Internet, 41 Brandeis L.J. 397 (2003).
[35] Id.
[36] 447 U.S. 455 (1980).
[37] Id.
[38] FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra note 11.
[39] Id.
[40] Miller, Jeremy, Dignity as a New Framework, Replacing the Right to Privacy, 30 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 1 (2007).
[41] Carter, Edward et al., supra note 29. The exception is in the case of certain political messages expressed in public.
[42] Miller, Jeremy, supra note 40.
[43] Id.
[44] Sunstein, Cass R., Television and the Public Interest, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 499 (March 2000).
[45] Tolentino, Arturo, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, volume I (1990 edition), p. 59.
[46] Id., p. 61.
[47] Id.
[48] Id.
[49] Id.
[50] Carter, Edward et al., supra note 29. “The law of nuisance does not say, for example, that no one shall maintain a pigsty; it simply says that no one shall maintain a pigsty in an inappropriate place, such as a residential neighborhood.” FCC, In the Matter of a Citizen's Complaint Against Pacifica Foundation Station WBAI (FM), 56 F.C.C.2d 94 (1975) cited in Carter. Edward et al., id.
[51] Namely, the right of every person to dignity; the right of parents to develop the moral character of their children; the right of the youth to the promotion and protection by the State of their moral well-being and the right to privacy.
[52] Presidential Decree.
[53] See Chavez v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 164527, 15 August 2007, 530 SCRA 235.
[54] Id.
[55] See paragraph (d), Section 3 of PD 1986 in relation to paragraph (c) thereof.
[56] Section 2(12), Chapter 1, Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987.
[57] Salinas v. Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 148628, 28 February 2007, 517 SCRA 67.
[58] See Sections 1 and 2, Rule 65 Rules of Court.
[59] Section 6, Chapter XIII of the Rule and Regulations Implementing PD 1986 provides:
Section 6. Finality of decision of the Board. – Decisions of the Board (including that of the Chairman and the Hearing and Adjudication Committee) shall become final and executory after the lapse of the period for appeal without any appeal having been perfected.
[60] Republic v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. 161657, 4 October 2007, 534 SCRA 619.
[61] Carter, Edward et al., supra note 29 citing Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Free Speech in the United States 150 (1941).
[62] Id.
[63] Id.
[64] Id.
[65] FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, supra note 11.
[66] Id.